Point of Law: As a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 9.8.2021 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the DRT’) in SA No.197/2021, whereby certain interim directions have been issued.

2. In response to the query raised by this Court as to whether the impugned order is appealable before the DRAT as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted though the statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners, however, since the impugned order is without jurisdiction and the DRT has granted the reliefs, which were even not been prayed before it, this Court can very well interfere in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Grapco Industries Ltd. and Others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1975 and State of W.B. and others Vs. Ashit Nath Das and others , reported in AIR 1988 SC 729 .

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the material available on record, I am of the opinion that when the statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not liable to be interfered with.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413 has deprecated the practice of the High Courts in interfering with the matters falling under the SARFAESI Act and has observed as under:-

“It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”

6. Later on, relying on the above judgment passed in Satyawati Tondon’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in State Bank of Travancore and Ors. Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in AIR 2018 SC 676 has held as under :

“9. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in the country was felt not to have a level playing field in comparison to other participants in the financial markets in the world. The financial institutions in India did not have the power to take possession of securities and sell them. The existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions had not kept pace with changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms resulting in tardy recovery of defaulting loans and mounting non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Narasimhan Committee I and II as also the Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government Act had suggested enactment of new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and sell them without court intervention which would enable them to realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspectshave not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order.

10. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and others,(2001) 6